An exploration of the three cardinal transgressions, legal guidelines in coercive circumstances, and the obligation to save another's life.

God has commanded us in His Torah, "Keep My decrees and laws, since it is only by keeping them that a person can [truly] live" (Leviticus 18:5). Thus, if one's life is in danger, he may violate any law to save or heal himself.

The only exception to this rule are the three cardinal sins -- idolatry, murder and sexual crimes -- for which one must die rather than transgress. We are called upon to give our lives rather than transgress any law which is even associated with these three sins.

It is therefore forbidden to resort to any idolatrous faith healer or shrine, even when one is dangerously ill and a psychological cure may be effected. One may receive treatment from a non-Jewish physician, even if he is an idolater, but not from an atheistic or idolatrous psychiatrist.

It is only forbidden to save a life through idolatrous means when some religious motivation is suspected. Where no religious motivation is involved, it is permitted to make material use of objects associated with idolatry to save a life. Therefore, it is permitted to heal with drugs used in idolatrous rites, or seek asylum in a church when one is being pursued.

Denying Jewishness

One who is prepared to die for his Jewishness sanctifies God's Name. Conversely, denying that one is Jewish is akin to idolatry, since it implies a denial of our fundamental beliefs. Therefore, in time of danger, it is forbidden to save one's life by denying that he is Jewish. It is permitted to make an ambiguous statement, to act like a non-Jew, or to disguise oneself as such. It is forbidden to disguise oneself as a priest, however, since this is the same as an outright denial of one's Jewishness.

A woman may deny that she is Jewish or disguise herself as a nun to avoid being raped, since there is no sanctification of God's Name in being raped. In such a case, she may also disguise herself as a man…

Euthanasia and Abortion

One may remove the organ as soon as he stops breathing.

It is forbidden to destroy one life to save another. One may therefore not end a dying person's life by removing an organ needed for a transplant to save another. However, one may remove the organ as soon as he stops breathing, even though his heart is still beating, since the Torah considers life directly connected to breathing. This is brought out in the context of the Flood, regarding which it is written, "Everything on dry land whose life was sustained by breathing died" (Genesis 7:22). This is true only when the donor has no possible chance of living.

An unborn child is considered part of its mother's body and not a living person in its own right. Therefore, if a woman's life is endangered by childbirth, it is permissible to destroy the unborn child to save the mother's life. However, as soon as the child's head emerges or, in the case of a breech, the majority of its body, it is forbidden to destroy the child since it is considered a living person in its own right.

Nevertheless, it is forbidden to wantonly destroy even an unborn embryo, since it will eventually be born and live. Only when the physical or mental health of the mother is at stake, may she have an abortion. (For practical application, one must always refer to an expert in Jewish law - Ed.)

Coercive Circumstances

One is innocent of sin only when forced bodily or under threat of death to do a specific act, and only when the sin itself is the source of danger. However, it is forbidden to attempt to save oneself from sickness or danger by violating one of the three cardinal sins. In such cases, one is considered guilty, since he is not being coerced to transgress.

This distinction is also applicable in the case of money. It is forbidden to save one's life with another's money, unless one has the intention of repaying it. If one is forced under pain of death or torture to hand over another's money, however, he need not repay it, since it is considered involuntary. Still, if there is no direct coercion, and one saves life or limb with another's money, he must make restitution.

If one is being pursued or attacked and causes damage while escaping, he must therefore make complete restitution to everybody involved with the exception of his assailant. Where one causes damage by saving another's life, however, the courts exempt him from payment so that people should not hesitate to come to the rescue of others.

If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first -- Talmud.

Although it is forbidden to save one life with another, it is permitted to kill in self-defense, since the assailant forfeits his life and there is no guilt in killing him. We are therefore taught, "If one comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first" (Talmud)

Even where the assailant does not directly threaten one's life, as with a burglar or armed robber, he may be killed in self-defense, where it may be assumed that he will kill if provoked. The Torah says, "If a burglar is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is not considered an act of murder" (Exodus 22:1). We derive all cases of self-defense from this case.

Killing an Assailant

Just as one may kill in self-defense, so it is required to kill one who is pursuing or attacking another with murderous intent. Of course, if it is possible, one must save the person being pursued by injuring the attacker. Only when this cannot be done must we have no pity and kill the attacker.

Similarly, any assailant who might kill when provoked, such as a burglar or armed robber, must be killed by any bypasser to save the victim. Extending this to include all cases of endangering life, even a young child who does not know better, or an unborn baby, must be killed, since the life of the victim must be saved by any means.

We are taught that rape is equivalent to murder. Therefore, if one is attacking a woman with the intent of raping her, he may be killed to save her as long as he has not completed the act. Regarding a woman being sexually attacked, the Torah states, "Only the rapist shall be put to death… Since he attacked the betrothed girl in the field, even if she had cried out, there would have been no one to come to her aid" (Deut. 22:25, 27), which implies that if a rescuer is present, he may use any means to save her, even if it means killing the attacker. One may similarly save a man from homosexual attack.

An informer who denounces a fellow Jew to the government to be killed, imprisoned, or even fined is likened to an assailant, since being arrested can be a dangerous and traumatic experience. It is in recognition of this danger that the prophet lamented, "Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of every street, as an antelope trapped in a net" (Isaiah 51:20). Therefore, one who is preparing to denounce another is considered an assailant, and may be killed as such as soon as his intention is know.

One who kills an assailant where he could have just as easily stopped him without taking his life, is considered a murderer.

In all the above cases, one should attempt to warn the assailant when possible. If he does not heed the warning, he should be stopped by being wounded or incapacitated, and only killed as a last possible resort. One who kills an assailant where he could have just as easily stopped him without taking his life, is considered a murderer.

One is only considered an assailant before he completes the act of murder, rape or informing. Once the deed is done, however, it becomes a case for the courts, and one may not take the law into his own hands.

A criminal whose activities endanger the community is considered an assailant, and after being duly warned, may be denounced to the authorities. If he accepts the warning, however, he cannot be denounced for his previous actions. This is true of anybody who endangers others, even without intent.

Any object that endangers life is judged as an assailant, and may be destroyed without monetary liability.

The commandment divides into two parts. "Cut off [the assailant's] hand" (Deut. 25:12) is a positive commandment to save a victim from the hands of his assailant. "Do not show any mercy" (ibid.) is a negative commandment not to hesitate to wound or even kill an assailant when necessary.

Saving Another Life

In any case, one who neglects to save a life when the opportunity presents itself is guilty of violating the commandment, "Do not stand still when your neighbor's life is in danger" (Leviticus 19:16). Therefore, one is obliged to spend any amount of money necessary to save a Jewish life, but the victim must repay it if and when he is able. Nevertheless, one need not endanger life or limb to save another.

If several persons are in danger where all cannot be saved, a religious scholar is given priority. Similarly, one should give precedence to his own parents or other relatives, as well as his teachers…

In all cases not involving a life or death situation, as for instance when a woman's honor is at stake, whether it be for food or clothing, she takes precedence [over a man], since the shame she could suffer is potentially greater.

Just as we are required to save a fellow Jew from danger, so too we must rescue any non-Jew who worships God, such as a Christian or Muslim. The Torah thus states, "Help him survive, whether he is a proselyte or a resident alien" (Leviticus 25:35). This implies that we are required to sustain these non-Jews and provide them with charity and food, as the Torah further states, "You may give it to a resident alien in your settlements so that he may eat it" (Deut. 14:21)…

Saving one's own life comes first.

One need not give his life to save another, as the Torah states, "Let our brother live alongside you" (Leviticus 25:36), which implies that one's own life comes first. Therefore, for example, if two persons are in a desert, and one has just enough water for himself, he need not share it with the other.

Similarly, one need not endure excessive pain or suffering to save another's life. Although it is not required, it is an act of piety to give one's life to save a community or a great religious leader.

There is nothing more precious and irreplaceable than life in the eyes of God. Therefore, one who saves a single life is counted as if he had saved the entire world.

From "The Handbook of Jewish Thought" (Vol. 2, Maznaim Publishing. Reprinted with permission.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan was a multi-faceted, prolific exponent of Jewish thought -- skilled in both Kabbalah and Jewish law, as well as the natural sciences (he was listed in "Who’s Who in Physics"). He suffered an untimely death at age 48.

Visitor Comments: 3

Good guidelines for every Human to follow in the course of path to lead a life. He/She may be able to decide what to do and what not to do.

(2)
kalema yosef,
August 6, 2004 12:00 AM

THANKING FOR WONDERFUL WISDOM WORDS

Dear Rabbi Aryeh kaplan, shalom v kabbalat shabbat.
Infact thank you for your wisdom teachings about death and life. it was next week when i had amagazine concerning about ''KABBALAH'' but i have not ready on that page and the title was about '' agal called madona''.
I HOPE TO TELL YOU MORE INFORMATION AFTER MY READING .BUT CONTINUE TO GIVE US THAT NEWS.
I WISH YOU ANICE SHABBAT AND I HOPE TO HEAR FROM YOU SOON EVEN I WILL NEED TO KNOW YOUR PROFILE.
I,M FROM UGANDA IN ABAYUDAYA COMMUNITY.

YOUR'S
YOSEF .K.

(1)
Anonymous,
August 2, 2004 12:00 AM

On the subject of Euthanasia...

... I did not feel that Rabbi Kaplan covered the subject satisfactorily. His position on organ transplantation is understood, and I agree. However, there is the broader subject of euthanasia and those individuals that are dying, where the ill individual makes the decision to terminate her or his life, for lack of quality of life, to stop the pain, and knowing that there exists no opportunity to get better much less recover, and for other qualified reasons.

I would like to know about Euthanasia and the dying individual.

My Aunt made the decision that she wanted the right to control her destiny, having been terminally ill with Pulmonary disease, and more, for many years. If she caused the termination of her life, would that be euthanasia? Did she have the right to end her suffering when she found no quality in life, and her prognosis was death any time during the next 3 to 6 months? My Aunt would sit in a wheel chair, on oxygen, and bones could/would break. She was not a happy camper; and, she was an intelligent woman. Did she have the right to make the decision to control her own destiny and end her own suffering?

A few years later, her husband was in the hospital dealing with a cardiac problem. He finally came to a position where he was more fearful of the various medical interventions, vs. dying. He stopped all medical treatment, was at peace, and was dead within the week.

Was that euthanasia?

My former Mother-in-law was 18 months into dealing with ALS when she went into a coma from a lack of oxygen, and was at death's doorstep. Having been rushed to the hospital by an EMS, the nuerologist advised the family that she would die if she was not put on a respirator. If put on the respirator, she would wake up and live. How long? Who knows.

When asked by the nuerologist, her family made the decision that she would not go on the respirator. She was dead within 2 to 4 hours. Was that euthanasia? Murder?

It is possible that I could want the ability to control my destiny were I dying, in pain, with no quality of life, and no hope for a future. Please define for me, the difference between *having the morphine drip turned up*, vs. stopping all medical considerations and intervention? I know that the death by increase of the morphine drip is a form of euthanasia, and assume the other is not. Why?

Why, should we go though months (if not longer) of illnesses where there is no hope for recovery, where there is constant pain and discomfort, where there exists a mental anguish in knowing that death is coming tomorrow, next week/month, or in a few months, and wherein there is no quality of life, coupled with no desire to live that existance? Why?

Thank you.

P.S. I am not dying; I am in good health ~ Baruck ha-Shem...

Submit Your Comment:

Name:*

Display my name?

YesNo

Email:*

Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...